In the case, U.S. Term Limits vs. Thorton, the Supreme Court ruled that neither Congress nor states could impose eligibility requirements on members of Congress more strict than those specified in the Constitution, overturning Congressional term limits laws of 23 states. However, several polls have determined that over 70% of U.S. voters want congressional term limits.
The most obvious way to deal with this would be a constitutional amendment instituting term limits, and several bills have been filed in Congress to accomplish this. But congressional leaders have not allowed a vote on the matter, possibly because they do not want to limit their own terms.
A less convenient way to deal with this would be for states to introduce ballot-access laws preventing members of Congress from appearing on the ballot after a certain number of terms. A candidate not appearing on the ballot could still, in theory, win through a write-in campaign, but this is unlikely. I believe this would be constitutional because the Constitution gives states wide latitude on how to run their elections.
I propose an amendment imposing limits of three terms (18 years) for a senator, nine terms (18 years) for a representative, and 18 years for a Supreme Court justice or other federal judge. Terms or years of service before ratification of the amendment would not count toward the total. It is likely Congress, including its leadership, would support such an amendment, since most of them will be retired before the limits hit. I imagine such an amendment would have no difficulty being ratified by the state legislatures. Opponents of term limits often cite the importance of experience for members of Congress. I agree that experience is valuable, but anyone who has not acquired enough experience to do the job in their first term or two doesn’t belong in Congress.
In the meantime, I wish some states would experiment with ballot-access term limits.